Anti-Sacrilege Act

TheAnti-Sacrilege Act(1825–1830) was a Frenchlawagainstblasphemyandsacrilegepassed in April 1825 underKingCharles X.The death penalty provision of the law was never applied, but a man named François Bourquin was sentenced to perpetualforced labourfor the sacrilegious burglary of Eucharistic objects;the law was later revoked at the beginning of theJuly Monarchyunder KingLouis-Philippe.

Charles X

The draft bill

In April 1824, KingLouis XVIII's government, headed by theUltra-royalistJean-Baptiste, Comte de Villèle,introduced a first draft of the law into Parliament. The elections of December 1823, conducted under restrictedcensus suffrage,had produced a heavy ultraroyalist majority in theChamber of Deputies,which was therefore dubbedChambre retrouvée(in reference to the ultra-royalistChambre introuvableelected after theRestoration). Despite this majority, the bill failed as it was not accepted by theChamber of Peers.

After the accession ofCharles Xin September of the same year, Villèle's government decided to seize the opportunity and reintroduced the bill, giving an increase in the stealing of sacred vessels (chalicesandciboria) as the reason.

The Villèle government initially envisaged graduating sentences. Concerning profanations, the sentences were to change according to various cases. If the profanation had been done on vessels containing holy objects, the crime was supposed to be punished by perpetualforced labour.If the profanation had been done on vessels containing consecratedhosts,the punishment was death. If it was on the hosts themselves, the death sentence was the same as that given toparricides:cutting off the right hand followed bydecapitation(a sentence in force during theAncien Régimeand repealed during theRevolution,but reestablished in 1810). Following the debates, this last punishment was later replaced by an "honorable amend"made by the criminal before dying.

The government's argument

TheComte de Peyronnet,the minister in charge of the law project, described the law as a "necessary expiation after so many years of indifference or impiety". He was followed by theComte de Breteuil,who declared: "In order to make our laws respected, let us first make religion be respected." ThecounterrevolutionaryessayistLouis, Vicomte de Bonaldadamantly defended capital punishment before the Assembly.

The opponents' arguments

Some members of theliberalopposition formed by theDoctrinaires,including theBaron de Barante,the Comte de Languinais,Pierre Paul Royer-CollardandBenjamin Constant,argued that the law created an interpenetration between human justice and God's judgment, and that the state was supposed do no more than protect freedom of religion. Royer-Collard argued, "Just like religion which is not of this world, human law is not of the invisible world; both worlds, which touch each others, should never be confused: the tomb is their limit." He declared the law "anti-constitutional" and as "violatingfreedom of thought",imposing one specific religion over other ones. Benjamin Constant, aProtestant,argued that his religion itself prohibited him from voting for the law, as thereal presenceof the Christ in the host could be considered as such only by Catholics. Either the person said to be guilty believes in thedogmaand is therefore "insane", argued Constant, or he does not, in which case sacrilege cannot be said to be constituted and he must therefore be punished only as a "heckler" (perturbateur).

Somereactionarypoliticians argued in the same manner: theComte de Lanjuinaisargued that the word ofdeicidewas in itself a blasphemy, and that the law could not "constitute itself judge of the offenses against God". Thus Justice Minister Peyronnet finally decided to limit the law to sacrileges "voluntarily and publicly" committed, as not to interfere with inner conscience andconfession.Peyronnet even made an analogy with "indecent assaults" (attentats à la pudeur): one shocks public morality only by committing such acts in public, not in private. The same goes, argued Peyronnet, in concerns with sacrilege. Peyronnet's argumentation was seen by the press as adventurous and ill-founded.Hugues Felicité Robert de Lamennaisattacked Villèle's government in apamphlet,asking how a sacrilege can be a crime committed against religion but not against God.

Vote

Following long and passionate debates, the project was adopted by the Peers' Chamber by 127 votes against 96, then by the deputies by 210 votes against 95. The text benefited from the support of the thirteen peers who were alsoprelates,without whom the death penalty would not have been adopted by theChambre des pairs.The Anti-Sacrilege Act specified that for the sacrilege to be constituted, the act must take place "voluntarily, publicly and by hatred or contempt for religion".

Impact and evaluation

The death penalty provision of the law was never applied, but a man named François Bourquin, who was a weaver fromMossans,was sentenced to perpetualforced labourfor the sacrilegious burglary of Eucharistic objects from three separate churches;the law was repealed after the 1830July Revolution,in the first months of KingLouis-Philippe's reign.

HistorianJean-Noël Jeanneney,former president of theBibliothèque nationale de France(2002–2007), deemed the law "anachronistic"and highlighted the Ultra-Royalists' position ofEnlightenmentideas by referring to the idea of non-intervention of the state in religious matters presented by the "Sacrilege" article inDiderot's andd'Alembert'sEncyclopédie.

See also

• Bourbon Restoration
• Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution
• France in the nineteenth century
• French criminal law
• Roman Catholicism in France

Bibliography

• M. Duvergier de Hauranne,Histoire du gouvernement parlementaire en France, 1814-1848,t. VIII, 1867, chap. 34. (analysis of the debates by anOrleanisthistorian)
• H. Hasquin, "La loi du sacrilège dans la France de la Restauration (1825)", inProblèmes d'histoire des religions,Editions de l'université de Bruxelles, t. XIII, 2003, pp. 127–142.
• Jean-Noël Jeanneney, "Quand le sacrilège était puni de mort en France", inL'Histoire,June 2006, pp. 68–72.
• J.-H. Lespagnol,La Loi du Sacrilège,Domat-Montchrestien, 1935.
• L.F. du Loiret (Le Four),Histoire abrégée du sacrilège chez les différents peuples et particulièrement en France,t. II, self-published, 1825.